Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Edward L. PENKALSKI, Petitioner, v. H. Carl McCALL, as Comptroller of the State of New York and Administrator of the New York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System, Respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which denied petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits.
Petitioner, a police officer, sustained a disabling knee injury when he slipped and fell on wet grass while chasing a suspect. Ruling that petitioner did not sustain an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, respondent denied petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits. In this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the determination, petitioner claims that his slip and fall on wet grass was sudden and unexpected and, therefore, an accident. We disagree.
Crucial to the finding of an accident in cases of this nature is “a precipitating accidental event * * * which was not a risk of the work performed” (Matter of McCambridge v. McGuire, 62 N.Y.2d 563, 567-568, 479 N.Y.S.2d 171, 468 N.E.2d 9). Thus, “[u]nless the injury results from an event that would not ordinarily be anticipated in the context of the worker's employment, it cannot be defined as an ‘accidental’ injury” (Matter of Butler v. McCall, 247 A.D.2d 709, 710, 668 N.Y.S.2d 762). In chasing a suspect, petitioner was certainly engaged in police work and, in the performance of this work, exposure to a variety of conditions, including wet grass, was an inherent risk that would ordinarily be anticipated. Accordingly, respondent could rationally conclude that petitioner's slip and fall on the wet grass encountered during the chase was a risk of the work performed (see, Matter of O'Donnell v. New York State & Local Retirement Sys., 249 A.D.2d 607, 670 N.Y.S.2d 631; Matter of Minchak v. McCall, 246 A.D.2d 952, 667 N.Y.S.2d 863). The determination is, therefore, confirmed.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
ROSE, J.
CARDONA, P.J., CREW III, SPAIN and CARPINELLO, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 14, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)